The causes of homosexuality are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most liberal school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.[1] The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

Causes of homosexuality - Biblical explanation

The Bible, being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since the Fall. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a robot - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. For more information please see:Homosexuality and the Bible and Homosexuality and biblical interpretation

Nature of man and causes of homosexuality

In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)[2]

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through Moses, which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the New Testament reveals were typological. For more information please see:Leviticus 18.

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)[3]

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

Environment

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality.

The record of Sodom, as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where iniquity abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for abomination here is tô‛êbah, which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other physical type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.[4] Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

Idolatry and judgment

In Romans 1, God, through the apostle Paul, condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) For more information please see:Romans 1.

In summary, God's eternal power is manifest in His creation (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, feminists, wishing to deny the God-given role of women, often engage in goddess worship and other forms of idolatry[5] and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.[6]

Conclusion of Biblical explanation

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality.

Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate (and a main source for this section),

The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the etiology of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the psychoanalytical theory, see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.[7] This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

Environment and nurture

Columbia Universitypsychiatry professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".[8]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work Overcoming Homosexuality, Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'[9]

Similarly, in a 1989 USA Today article, San Francisco State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, Journal of Homosexuality, stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."[10]

Parental relationships with offspring

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.[11] Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.[12]

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. [13]

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.[14]

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

Sexual abuse

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.[15][16] Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.[17] In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.[18]

Educational indoctrination

As part of the liberal ideology in modern education, and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual activists, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of HIV instruction of preventing suicide by homosexuals, and preventing homophobia. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

Biological research on the causes of homosexuality

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."[26][27] This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.

2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.

3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."[28][29]

4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.[30]

5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.[31]

6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".[32].

7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,[33] He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."[34][35]

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." [36]

Another study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, examined the anterior commissure (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.[37].

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.[38]

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.[39][40]

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.[41][42][43]

Conclusions

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,

Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." [48]

Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.[50]

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.[51]

Indications of onset homosexuality

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.[52] However, this is not always the case, and many children who manifest gender non-conformity are simply trying to discover what gender is.

Homosexuality as a choice

The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.[53]

Ironically, the homosexuals themselves argued back in 1971 that homosexuality is "merely a preference, orientation, or propensity"[54]. One homosexual received the question on this topic in the CBS documentary from 1967: "Most homosexuals if they had a chance to be a heterosexual, would they? Well, I have a friend who took a poll of 300 people on that very question, he asked them: If you were able to take a pill to change yourself from homosexual to heterosexual, would you do it? And something like 95% of men said: “No.”"[55]

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)

Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “reparative therapy” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.[65]

”

Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

↑L. Allen, et al., Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202